Sfdebris.net

Ignoring the blatant continuity errors and whatever else, let's just look past that, accept that STD is gonna be here to stay, and focus instead on the question. What's something you'd love to see from fan theories about TOS canonized in STD? Like, one thing I was thinking about primarily was how imagine if Trelane was revealed as a Q for the STD cast? Now granted, given how they misunderstand the subtle nuances of the past lore (like making Mudd a psychopath and retconning Mirror Universe characters to be sensitive to light), I don't doubt they'd add something stupid that would make you groan, but damn it, I'd love to see Trelane back confirmed as a Q in the TOS era again. Though of course, that only depends on if they get a capable actor. Like maybe this is a Trelane that's "grown up" after his encounter with Kirk and so has gone back in time to dick with them. That would be great.

Why do you keep making threads about Discovery? You don't even watch it anymore. It's baffling.

Anyway, maybe seeing Garth before he went coocoo for cocoa puffs. That'd be interesting.

LavarosVA wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:22 am Why do you keep making threads about Discovery? You don't even watch it anymore. It's baffling.

Are you kidding me?

Right, wouldn't it be awesome if they 'confirm' the fan theory that the guy who needs machinery to augment his powers and thinks Earth is still at the rapiers-and-fops stage because he uses light-based observation and doesn't know how lightspeed works, is actually a Q and not any other of the magic-level-powered godlike aliens you can't go a parsec without tripping over in Trek, because he's a juvenile bag of dicks and John de Lancie's Q, who was demonstrably capable of maturity when he felt like it, often acted like a juvenile bag of dicks to get a rise out of Picard and co. Also he'd have to time travel for it to make sense. But yeah, let's all hope they don't add something that'd make you groan.

It was said within the episode that Trelane didn't even need the machine. It could just be him toying with the crew.

You can explain it all you want, that doesn't stop it being a retcon. If it's a retcon you like, go for it.

Well, you guys do the same thing, so this is one I'd like. XD

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:04 am Well, you guys do the same thing, so this is one I'd like. XD

But by embracing what the other side does you are now just as bad. As I have said elsewhere, you don't get to be the good guy by doing what the bad guys do.

I wanna see the Defiant.

This topic just makes me think of what would count as canonizing. First of all, it'll be hard to canonize something if it's probable that the entire series will be retconned. But secondly, is just mentioning something canonizing? I think little things like putting Archer's name on the screen and mentioning the existence of something in a sideline is less canonizing than having the interns go through the scripts and look where they can put a reference in to "appease the fanboys". Is it really canon that the USS Tsiolkovsky was proudly manufactured in the USSR?

I consider things canon if they are actual plot elements or at least expanded more than just a name or a quick glance. Something in a 3-second shot, to me, is only canon if it will actually be used at some point. It's the series equivalent of 'Chekhov's Gun'. It actually annoys me when stuff is stuffed in without any context. And that is the only connection this series has to the pre-2005 era.

Apart from all this I never really cared much about TOS although a good connection to the TNG era would be appreciated. Although it wouldn't work without an entire reset. Or something that would be possible would be the historical reexamination of Archer, including some discussion about the motivations and exact nature of historical events surrounding him. If Starfleet is so scientifically minded as it appears to be the regular reexamination of historical figures should be a hard part of it. Including probably a few schools of interpretation surrounding the actions of Archer. It would be especially wonderful if they could make you question the actual motives behind Archer's actions even if you rewatch the episodes.

But that'll need writing talent....

I'll admit that I'm quite behind on actually watching the series as my curiosity isn't stronger than both my craving for sanity and my willingness to keep the contents of my stomach in my stomach, to watch more than an episode a month.